Unlike most bloggers who write on gay issues, I don’t believe we should turn to the government to address many of our concerns.  Yes, I believe we need to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and to enact laws recognizing same-sex relationships, but beyond that, the state should leave us alone.

We are already seeing the fruits of that “neglect.”  We are increasingly being able to live openly in American society.  More and more corporations have adopted non-discrimination policies covering sexual orientation while offering benefits for same-sex domestic partnership.  Just today, I didn’t think twice when kissing the guy I’m dating good-bye on a public street or holding his hand when we walked to lunch.

Even as the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign have done a great job in accommodating my late request for blogger credentials to the convention this week, I’m not so naif to ignore the various anti-gay voices within my party.

Some would have McCain use the issues of gay marriage and gays in the military.  But, as I said in this post that would be a bad idea.  It might galvanize social conservatives but would do so “at the expense of independent voters” while antagonizing many rank-and-file Republicans.

The issue, as I’ve said then and repeated ad nauseum since I first founded a Log Cabin chapter in the late 1990s, is that most Americans are neither pro-gay nor anti-gay, but they are by and large, anti-anti-gay. They may not like what we do in the bedroom, may find it “icky,” may even disapprove of my public smooch this afternoon, but they pretty much want to leave people like us alone. And would wonder at politicians who dwell on the issue.

I’m delighted that my notion of most voters being anti-anti-gay is getting some attention. It earned me a reference last month in the Washington Times‘ blogotics column.

But, I hope it’s not just conservative columnists who are paying attention to this notion. GOP Convention planners would also do well to take heed.  Should they dwell on gay issues in St. Paul, they’ll drown out the reform message which resonates with the Republican base as well as independent voters.

This will help not just with straight undecided voters, but also with gay voters.  When I asked a gay Hillary supporter who was leaning toward McCain whether gay issues were important to him when he cast his vote, he wrote back:

They are somewhat important, but from the “do no harm” perspective.  I don’t mind when a politician doesn’t support advancing gay rights, but I do when they attempt to take back gains already made.

Simply put, if the GOP avoids gay issues this week–and in the fall campaign–John McCain should be able to appeal to swing voters and secure a substantial share (say more than 30%) of the gay vote.

In my previous post, I wondered why so many on the left have become so enthusiastic for Barack Obama as this agent of change when they could point to little (if any) real reform the Illinois Democrat had enacted (or help enact) in his twelve years in public life.

And then he taps as his running mate, Joe Biden, a Washington institution for nearly thirty-six years not known for his zeal for reform. Indeed, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor David Skeel, a expert on corporate law, writes that the Delaware Senator has actually blocked reform on several occasions:

As a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, Biden has almost single-handedly thwarted a number of reform proposals that would have interfered with Delaware’s prominence as a popular destination for corporate bankruptcy filings. He has been similarly effective in protecting Delaware’s other corporate interests.

Meanwhile, John McCain has tapped as his running mate a Governor who has done more to reform her state government in 20 months in office than Biden has done to reform the federal government in his 36 years in Washington.

Even before taking the helm of the Alaskan government, Sarah Palin had stood up to entrenched interests, initiating an “ethics probe of the state’s Republican party chairman, Randy Ruedrich, involving conflicts of interest with oil companies. The probe resulted in a $12,000 fine for the party chair.” Not only did she stand up to her own state party’s corrupt leader, she also stood up to spendthrift Republicans in the state legislature, putting a halt to the GOP legislative leadership’s “spending spree“

Sounds like the type of real Republican we could use in our nation’s capital.

No wonder John McCain had been considering her for some time. According to Ed Morrissey:

McCain’s selection of Palin was a deliberate effort to craft a specific message for the general election and for his Presidency, should he win. He wants to challenge his party to recall their reform roots from the Reagan Revolution and the Contract with America. He cannot expect to have that taken seriously or effectively without having a real reformer, and not just a talker, on the ticket with him.

(Via Instapundit.) A real reformer, not just a talker. Sounds like quite a contrast to Joe Biden. And Barack Obama.

As Stephen Dinan worte in analyzing McCain’s choice: “I’ll see your change’ raise you ’shake up.’“

RELATED: Let Palin be Palin.

Perhaps it was fate this morning when I was scanning the comments to my posts this morning, I chanced on ILoveCapitalism’s piece taking Andrew Sullivan to task for faulting presumptive Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin for her inexperience while regularly attempting to dismiss conservative complaints about Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama’s similar inexperience.

You see, I had planned a post on how Andrew’s gushing over Obama which follows his four years of bashing George W. Bush has compromised his ability, in the words of this Corner reader, to “be taken seriously as a pundit anymore.“

When I read Andrew’s commentary on Obama’s speech, I was impressed that he acknowledged his bias, but questioned his judgment as I read the conclusion:

I’ve said it before – months and months ago. I should say it again tonight. This is a remarkable man at a vital moment. America would be crazy to throw this opportunity away. America must not throw this opportunity away.

Obama is clearly an incredibly intelligent and charismatic man. He wrote a very moving memoir.

But, what makes him so deserving of the googly-eyed accolades of such supporters as Sullivan?

• What has he accomplished besides deliver some really powerful speeches? Has he, in his twelve years in public office, enacted any major reforms, been the driving force behind any bipartisan legislation?
• What has he done to effect this new kind of politics he describes so readily?
• What does “postpartisanship” mean?
• What new ideas has he put forward? Even those praising the speech saw its policy prescriptions as standard liberal fare.

Without being able to identify Obama’s accomplishments or show how the Democratic nominee’s ideas represent a break from the past, we’re left with a gaggle of gushing supporters enthralled with a politician because of the power of his personality and the eloquence of his expression.

While I would not go as far as ILoveCapitalism does in labeling Andrew Sullivan in a comment to my most recent post, I do wonder as does he at the lengths to which this one-time thoughtful pundit goes to defend Barack Obama and trash his candidate’s adversaries.

ILC’s not the only one to point out the “twists and turns” Andrew takes to defend his man.

A reader writes in to Jonah Goldberg at the Corner:

Sullivan’s blog this weekend has been entertaining, to say the least. In one weekend, he has completed reversed his arguments on experience needed to be President, a candidate’s personal life as an appropriate subject in an election and just about any reason he had to vote for Obama in his analyses of the Palin pick. I’ve watched him twist his arguments to further his causes before, but this has been nothing short of breathtaking.

Read the whole thing.  Whoever it was who wrote into Jonah has pretty much articulated my thoughts on the decline of a blogger whose web-site was the first I checked when I first discovered the blogosphere.

So says Democrat and Obama supporter Camille Paglia of Sarah Palin’s debut on the national stage:

We may be seeing the first woman president. As a Democrat, I am reeling. . . . That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails.

I took particular note of those words because I had set aside Paglia’s Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson, a book I am reading for my dissertation, in order to prepare for my trip to the GOP Convention in St. Paul.

And while I’ve read some criticism of the Palin pick this evening, notably Amy Alkon’s hard-hitting, “Palin by Comparison,” the more I read, the more I realize that she hasn’t been called Sarah Barracuda for nothing.

Blogger Peg Kaplan at What If? links Harry Stein’s must-read post on the pick. Like Paglia, he was impressed with Palin’s speech on Friday in Dayton:

the moment she strode on stage, accompanied by her fisherman/oil worker husband and a gaggle of kids with strange names, it was apparent that she was different. No deer in the headlights, this was obviously a confident woman.
(more…)

In his speech Thursday night, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama said:

John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next commander in chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.

Hearing those words, Stephen Green commented, “Uh, dude, McCain wants to have like ten debates, and you winced at holding three of them.” James Taranto contended that with that line, Obama was hinting at a “favorite theme among Obama supporters . . . that McCain has an unstable temper.”

When I heard those words and as I ponder them today, I wonder if the Illinois Senator himself has the temperament to serve as commander in chief.  I mean, this guy gets upset when the McCain campaign puts out a critical and mocking ad.  

He alleges his rival’s team is “going to try to do is make you scared of me,” because “he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”  And yet offers no evidence to back up those allegations.

It doesn’t seem that someone who is easily rattled by criticism has the temperament to serve as President of the United States.  Or someone who makes wild and inaccurate accusations about his opponent’s campaign.

Ever since several left-wing gay blogs linked some of our posts on Sarah Palin, our spam filter has been inundated with nasty comments, some repeating the tired tropes about how self-hating we must be, others making wild, inaccurate and mean-spirited allegations about the next Vice President of the United States.

That said, some bloggers and pundits have offered some thoughtful criticism of the Alaska Governor and questioned her qualifications for the second highest office in the land.  In the interest of having a civil discussion on the benefits of John McCain’s choice, I thought I would share some with you.

Of the conservative web-sites I check regularly, the folks at Powerline have expressed the greatest amount of criticism of Sarah Palin.  John Hinderaker fears “she may be the Geraldine Ferraro of 2008.”  Given her lack of “foreign policy and national security background.”  Paul Mirengoff is similarly disappointed.

My friend Dale Carpenter calls the pick a “breathtakingly bad choice,” believing Palin “was chosen primarily as a political stunt to drive wedges and manufacture excitement.” He offers a more extended analysis of her weaknesses. While I don’t agree with Dale, he makes some pretty solid points, so make sure to check out his post — and, if you have time, the comments section which follows.  (H/t Instapundit.)

I’ll make my case to Dale when we have dinner next Monday in Minnesota.

Of those who blog National Review, David Frum offered the harshest assessment of Palin, wondering whether she was the irresponsible choice. Ramesh Ponnuru has been similarly skeptical, throwing cold water on Palin.

On the whole, these guys do offer some strong arguments. If you’re looking for serious criticism of Sarah Palin, follow those links and consider their points. It’s too bad that some of those faulting her in the comments section of this blog are not similarly thoughtful.

UPDATE:  Amy Alkon is not happy with the pick, offering “in a V.P. candidate, if we had a female, I was looking for something a little more…barren. Battle-ax-ish. Thatcheresque.”  Now read the whole thing, bearing in mind they don’t call her Sarah Barracuda for nothing.

When I watched Obama’s speech, my initial reaction was that it was one of his worst.  Still, he had greater fluency that does George W. Bush in most of his addresses.

The Democratic nominee came across as distance and, at times, angry.  He didn’t seem to connect to the crowd, though I have read reaction online that many at Invesco Field were move by their candidates’ remarks.

In listening to television commentary and reading blog and pundit reviews of the speech, what struck me was the great diversity of views.  On FoxNews, Dick Morris called it one of the greatest speeches ever.  Charles Krauthammer, with whom I normally agree on most things political, thought it wasn’t a great speech but a smart one.  He thought it worked.

Bill Kristol offered a similar assessment.

Michael Barone was not so impressed.  While less critical than yours truly, he thought the speech was “workmanlike rather than . . . inspirational.”  He also pointed out that it’s “pretty easy to refute” Obama’s “notion that John McCain is the (90 percent) same as George W. Bush.”  Thus, he concludes “that the major themes of Obama’s speech . . .  may not be sustainable.”

In a similar vein, Athena (AKA Peggy Noonan) doesn’t think that “six months from now,” people are “going to remember what he said.”  Well, she did say they’d “remember the Parthenon” which, after all, is her temple.

Simply put, “there were things about it that didn’t work.”  

Noonan said those who described the speech as symphony were engaged in “fatuous suck-upping.” And Peggy has crafted some pretty symphonic addresses of her own.

Well, with Peggy calling the speech a “flop-a-lini,” I think I’m on pretty solid ground with my criticisms.

(Via a reader who found the link here.)

More commentary here as well as the video which I couldn’t manage to upload.

Over at Red State, Jeff Emanuel contrasts the presumptive Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin and the Democratic Presidential nominee, Barack Obama (via Instapundit). And while he references their “previous public jobs,” he does not discuss the manner of their various elections.

That difference really distinguishes the two candidates, showing the one-term Alaska Governor to be a much tougher competitor, a more formidable foe, than the junior Senator from Illinois.

Back in 1996, both won election to office, Palin as Mayor of Wasilla, Obama to the Illinois State Senate. And just how did that Democrat win against Alice Palmer, the incumbent Senator of his own party?

The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

That’s right, he had her name — as well of the names of his other potential rivals — removed from the ballot.

And Sarah Palin? How did she win election that year? She rain against a three-term incumbent Mayor John Stein and beat him.

Obama gets the incumbent’s name removed from the ballot. Palin defeats him in an open election.

Now, let’s turn to the first election to statewide office.

(more…)

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!*

When we get linked on conservative and libertarian blogs, I find no noticeable increase in hate comments (even as the number of comments (and new “commenters”) increases).

When we get linked on left-wing blogs, particularly left-wing gay blogs, there is significant such increase. (And an increase in my hate mail.)

*Will be investigating how that link impacts the comments.

On Tuesday, August 26, a friend speculated I disliked Hillary Clinton because I fear strong women.

On Tuesday, November 4, I’ll be voting for just such a woman for Vice President of the United States.

Yesterday I wondered whether I should travel to St. Paul for the Republican National Convention. Prodded by readers and friends (including some who love ribbing me for my political leanings), I decided to go.

It wasn’t just their pressure which swayed me. It was also my realization that it may be one of the few chances I’d get to meet many of the bloggers and pundits whose work I enjoy. And it would be a great story.

There’s more. It will give me yet another chance to see what it’s like to be an openly gay man in Republican circles. I dare say, I’ll experience less adversity there than I do when I come out as a Republican in gay circles.

Whatever that reaction, I will share it with you. And will do my best to overcome my inclination to write essayistic posts so I can post more readily and regularly from the convention.

When I read that Todd Palin, the husband of the presumptive Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, is “Native Yup’ik Eskimo,” I wondered if that would have any impact on the presidential race.  After all, I don’t think we’ve ever had a Native American Indian on any national ticket.**

To be sure, Todd is only the spouse of a candidate, but will Native populations see this as a welcome sign.  

Two of the states with the largest such populations, Arizona (4.5%) and South Dakota (8.1%) can pretty much be counted as safe Republican.  So, I decided to scour the Native American population of several swing states in Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics (the source for the stats above) to see.

Colorado, a state which had until 2004, a Native American Senator (Ben Nighthorse Campbell) only has a native population of less than 1%, Nevada just over 1%, New Mexico 8.9%.

Thus, if Todd Palin’s background helps the GOP ticket anywhere, it’ll be New Mexico.  Bush won the state by fewer than 6,000 votes in 2004 and lost it by fewer than 400 in 2000.

The choice of Sarah Palin can only help McCain in the Land of Enchantment.

———
*Striking Inuit and replacing with Eskimo as per Comment #2.

**According to Dante in Comment #15 we have:  Charles Curtis of Kansas who served as Vice President under Herbert Hoover from 1929-33.

UPDATE (09/09/08):  I’ve just learned from an Alaskan than indigenous Alaskans do not consider themselves to be Native American Indians, they consider themselves Native Alaskans.

Yesterday, I blogged on the Obama campaign’s biggest blunders.  But, today, the day after his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, a scan of the top headlines reveals that the day’s headline is John McCain’s selection of Alaska Republican Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate (via Instapundit).

His speech might have garnered more headlines had his party elders not decided to hold their convention right before the Republican gathering.  Our custom is that the party out of power goes first.

Not wanting to having a long gap after their gathering and before the GOP meeting, the Democrats held theirs the only week they could, right after the Olympics.

Had the conventions not been back-to-back, it would have appeared unseemly for the Republican nominee to introduce the Democratic nominee the day after the Democrat’s speech.  But, when they’re back-to-back, he can do so, thus stealing the Democrats’ thunder.

The Democrats’ own choice prevented the speech of their party’s nominee from getting the media attention it may well have deserved.

I’ve always defined a diva as a strong, confident woman who commands the respect of men, the type of woman we gay men love.

Watching the Alaska Governor address the crowd in Denver earlier today, I was captivated. Sarah Palin held up well in her first appearance on the national political stage. Not only did she sound good, but she looked good. This lady has style.  I mean, you gotta love a politician whose hair reminds you of Audrey Hepburn.

I think she does a lot for the GOP. She’s “playing well with Hillary supporters.” Watching CNN while at the gym, I heard (well, actually read the close-captioning of) an evangelical recounting how excited how many of his colleagues are about the choice.

Michael Barone says she’ll be “Welcomed by Social and Economic Conservatives:”

Palin is a strong advocate of Second Amendment rights (a lifetime NRA member) and of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (will she change McCain’s mind on this?). Cultural conservatives have no basis for objecting to her. Neither, I would think, do economic conservatives. She supported Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell in his primary race against 35-year House incumbent Don Young, father of the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Her (and her husband’s) blue collar background will help her with those Hillary supporters, those “Reagan Democrats,” wary of their party’s nominee.

As a Governor, she took on special interests and fought corruption, doing more to reform her state’s government in her short time as chief executive of Alaska than Barack Obama has in twice that time in the United States Senate. This pick reinforces McCain’s image as a maverick and, as I wrote earlier today, helps undercut “the Democratic attempt to tie our man to George W. Bush.“

Sarah Palin is anything but a Bush Republican.

And we gay Republicans have something to cheer in her record. Shortly after taking office, she vetoed legislation that would have prevented the state from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees.

UPDATE:  I wonder if it was this pick which motivated me to make a modest contribution to the McCain-Palin campaign.  I encourage you to do so as well.

UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot): I can’t believe I am going to give money to the McCain campaign, but as Dan does above — I urge you to do so as well.  This commenter at The Corner sums up how I feel today.

Toss me in as another Republican who’s ecstatic about this pick and who’s writing a check. I teared up as I watched the speech given by Gov. Palin. I haven’t been this proud to be a Republican in far too long a time. I am proud we have a bona fide American hero running for president who has the political chops to miraculously energize his base and sucker punch the opposition at the same time.

Unbelievable. Now where’s my credit card…

UP-UPDATE: The folks at one of my favorite blogs, Powerline, were perhaps he most disappointed of the conservative bloggers at the Palin selection. In their latest post, Scott Johnson writes:

Judging by our email, Governor Palin’s selection has electrified conservatives. I think this is in part because of the way she is living out the prolife credo. She sets a powerful and inspiring example. In part the excitement also derives from her stands against the corruption that has tarnished the Republican Party. It seemed unlikely that McCain’s vice presidential selection would at the same time excite party regulars and serve to attract independents, but it may well do so.

As testimony to that electrification, I reference Bruce’s update above.

UP-UP-UPDATE: Check below the “jump” for more commentary on this choice: (more…)

Someone sounds desperate and childish…..

Barack Obama has run a very smart campaign but made one of its dumbest moves yet in response to John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin for veep.

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” campaign spokesman Bill Burton said.

This insider-Washington drivel from a campaign calling for change? This from the campaign of a guy whose foreign policy experience amounts to little more than a choreographed trip with reporters?

The McCain Campaign responds:

“It is pretty audacious for the Obama campaign to say that Governor Palin is not qualified to be Vice President.  She has a record of accomplishment that Senator Obama simply cannot match.  Governor Palin has spent her time in office shaking up government in Alaska and actually achieving results — whether it’s taking on corruption, passing ethics reform or stopping wasteful spending and the ‘bridge to nowhere.’  Senator Obama has spent his time in office running for President.” –Jill Hazelbaker, McCain Communications Director

Ouch, that has gotta hurt!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): How bone-headed is the Obama campaign. Its “first impulse” was to attack the first woman Governor tapped for a national ticket.  As ABCNews Jake Tapper (who so described the Obama campaign’s reaction) offers, “It was just yesterday McCain ran a TV ad congratulating Obama on his historic achievement.”

. . . I think it’s entirely possible John McCain hit a home run on this one (though this was not my initial reaction).

I’m getting a good feeling about this. Totally reinforces the presumptive GOP nominee’s maverick image, undercuts the Democratic attempt to tie our man to George W. Bush.

Do we gay Republicans have a new diva, a woman whom I define as a strong woman who commands the respect of men? Hope to meet her in St. Paul.

He taps Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot):  Woooooo hooooo!  Just as I couldn’t imagine me disliking the Obama ticket more after he picked Biden, I’m shocked to now find myself EXCITED about McCain’s pick and Vice President Sarah Palin.  I almost can’t believe that he has done it.

UP-UPDATE (from Dan). Blogger Stephen R. Maloney e-mailed me over a year ago (on July 31, 2007) pushing Palin for VP.  He sent me this Pittsburgh Tribune-Review piece heralding this feisty Republican woman as the “GOP’s beacon.“

UP-UP-UPDATE (from Dan):  Howard Wolfson (from HIllary’s campaign) says she’ll shakeup the race.  And thinks it might blunt the bump Obama gets from the Democratic convention.  

UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (from Dan):  Hugh Hewitt calls this an “extraordinary choice.”  Read the whole thing.

I see Dan has his hopes on MN Gov. Pawlenty.   (IMHO, that is a yawner.)  But it just dawned on me that there might be a reason the announcement is in Dayton, Ohio today.

Did you know that the Colin Powell Leadership Academy – the only one in the country from what I can tell — is located in Dayton, Ohio?

Hmmmmm.

A McCain-Powell ticket would certainly hold much more experience and gravitas over Obama-Biden.  And Colin Powell could run circles around Barack Obama as to living the “promise of America.”  Powell did it with hard work, blood, sweat and tears — not by the 2008 Democrat Party’s affirmative action program.

I know, I’m dreaming….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

GP Ed. Note: This posting was originally published on April 26, 2008.   I thought it would be fun to re-post it today.

******

DATELINE, Denver CO — August 28, 2008.  This is the unedited transcript of the acceptance speech given this evening by Democratic Party Presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).

My fellow proper-thinking Americans and oppressed people of this nation — thank you.  You have spoken for change and we have delivered together.  For without change, we cannot have hope.  Without hope, there is no change.  When we get change we can lift up those bitter folks among us and rise to the promise of America.  The America that I observed from afar.

As we embrace this change together we must remember that we cannot challenge change for it is good.  Unity is most important for without unity, there is no hope; without hope, there is no change.  Without change there is no future.

So now I call on all Americans to ignore the past, ignore my past, ignore this nation’s history, ignore what has made this nation full of bitter and shallow people.   And rise up with me to the new Promised Land — the Federal Government.  Washington will be reclaimed by those of us who know better, who think better, who know you better than you know yourselves because we know that you know that you want change and change is hope.

Thank you for your nomination and I look forward to a spirited debate with Senator McCain so long as he doesn’t question my voting record, ethics, integrity, philosophy of governing, or the folks who have supported me and I grew up with.  Because if he does, it will be clear that the Republicans are devolving back to the policies of Jim Crow and all that it stands for.

Good night, and God Bless my campaign.

**************

Reactions to Senator Obama’s speech:

“That is the best political speech I have ever heard.  This man is a born leader.  He was specific, yet sweeping in his rhetoric.  America should be proud tonight.”  — Chris Matthews, MSNBC

“It was hard to watch this speech without being moved to tears.  I now fully understand why all those women fainted throughout the primary campaign.  I can’t go on.”  — Anderson Cooper, CNN

“How he could stand up there and accept the Democratic nomination and not call for Bush’s impeachment is beyond me.  This guy is a joke.  This country is a joke.  I’m a joke.” — Keith Olbermann, MSNBC

“Does anyone know what the hell Obama was talking about?” — Brit Hume, FOX News Channel